Action No. 1: United States against IBM in 1932
- was contrary to the provisions of the competitive process
the first time that IBM's antitrust in touch, because it forced the users of its punch-card systems, only IBM's board as a data carrier to use. 1936 finally came to the verdict, which ordered the first unbundling. However, IBM was enigeräumt the right to dictate the quality of the cards from other manufacturers for their equipment. The ruling had no effect on the market situation.
Action No. 2: United States against IBM in 1947
- violation of the provisions of the Competition Act
The process is successfully used by IBM to abducted 1954th At that time she was due to a parallel ruling against the United Shoe Company in Schwulitätetn and quickly sought a Vergle3ich (consent decree), which was adopted in 1956 to the following conditions:
- sale of IBM now has at their machines, too.
- IBM may not buy used machines.
- machine buyer must receive the same service as machines tenants.
The comparison showed no significant change in market conditions.
Action 3: U.S. v. IBM, 1969
- violation of the provisions of the Competition Act
special price discrimination, increase market barriers for competitors, predatory competition and announcement of computers, the paper Weset allegations of extensive indictment. The process workflows and runs and ...
-plaintiff No. 1: Telex v. IBM, 1972
- violation of the provisions of the Competition Act
verdict in the first instance in September 1973; lagged a friendly judge in Tulsa (Oklahoma), the IBM 352 million dollars in damages and makes some hard conditions for the behavior of multinationals to the mixed-hardware industry. But just alls only in the first instance.
countersuit 1: IBM to Telex, 1973
- breach of patent rights, exploitation of trade secrets
verdict on appeal: Telex is sentenced to $ 18,500,000 damages. As the Company does not raise this money, she retired from the business process, including a comparison (October 1975) and tried to make their money back in competition. Conclusion: IBM tolerate continued successful mixed-hardware company.
-plaintiff 2: Control Data (CDC) against IBM
- violation of the provisions of the Competition Act specifically
announcement of paper machines. Taken without trial: CDC, the quiet giant of the computer business, he succeeded as the only to escape the control loop of the "impotence of knowledge".
0 comments:
Post a Comment